if in multiplayer (team games) then there only needs to be a few changes. Players should be able to fix each others units and structures and help build things. Power transfer, reaserch share and telemetry share is already implimented. It should also be easier to place beacons as I have seen people in mp do this but don't know how to myself.

kipman725 wrote:if in multiplayer (team games) then there only needs to be a few changes. Players should be able to fix each others units and structures and help build things. Power transfer, reaserch share and telemetry share is already implimented. It should also be easier to place beacons as I have seen people in mp do this but don't know how to myself.

That is the first thing I tested, and it pretty much does what you say. There is a screenshot of 3 units helping repair a wall someplace on the forums. That is part of the reason why I wanted to have a poll, and see what 'modes' people want to play.

I vote for "New full co-op mode, share everything including power" but i think sharing everything is not a good idea.

It will be to easy to win against the AI.

So I explain my opinion :

We can compare my idea to the alliance between the new paradigm and scavengers, they have bases separated, power (i think) separated and research are different.

I think that not sharing all things are more enjoyable cause each player can have team interests and his OWN interests, like developing secretly another technology to dominate the other player a few time later.

It would be more fun on my sens, alliance play and diplomacy action in addition to the fabulous gameplay of WZ2100 : awesome.

Perhaps a bit of a late addition to this thread, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents. First post on the board, by the way. Hello, everyone!

What exactly is understood by "sharing" energy? Is it that you can shuffle energy from one to another? Is it that the team has one large pool that everyone uses? I believe there are several angles to this:

One big pot. Everyone's energy gains go into one big pot, and everyone withdraws from the big pot. This is probably the easiest to implement, but it leaves the potential of aggravating other players.

Gainers, keepers. You have your own energy stash. When you build something, you draw from your own stash, until you run dry. Then, and only then, you will get dips on the gains of your team players (but their own needs take priority). Basically:

This requires a bit more work. Possibly, a limit drain could be implemented, customizable by the host (perhaps as a cmdline parameter initially). Setting that drain to 50% would mean that, at any time, at most 50% of your net energy revenue can be used by your allies.

Share the wealth. When one player needs more energy, a percentage of the energy of other players is taken. Say players A through C are on the same team. A needs more energy. B has 500 left, C has 1500. When A needs, say, 1000 energy, he takes 50% of both player's stash: 250 from B and 750 from C. Possibly, a minimum can be set by the players ("never share anything under 500").

I probably forgot a few options, but you get my drift. If you take, say, Gainers Keepers, and keep the option to donate energy directly to a player when needed, you can probably cover most bases without inconveniencing team mates of a particularly energy-devouring player.

Of course, I wonder how the AI would handle all this... I suppose it would do okay either way.

As for control, since I've seen Starcraft referenced, I feel I should add that Starcraft did offer some basic protection in the sense of showing what units where selected by other players. This should keep you from accidentally moving units under direct control of your peers.

One idea we've discussed is to place limits on how much energy you can store, depending on buildings you build (eg Oil Depots to be able to store more energy). Then you could automatically "donate" excess energy to allies. I think Supreme Commander does it this way?

Yes, I believe Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation worked that way.

I'm not sure how much of an effort it would be: would it be possible to support energy sharing as an interface with different implementations? I've understood it would require a GUI overhaul to find (decent) space for these options, but they could be added as a documented commandline option at first so people could choose the type they wanted. Something like: